Edition of 1900. See alsoGrover Cleveland and Rose Cleveland on Wikipedia, and our Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography disclaimer. The 1891 and 1900 editions differ substantially for this article since the former only covers Cleveland's first term, and only a portion of that. Material from the 1891 article was abbreviated to accommodate the additions to the 1900 article of the rest of Cleveland's first term and events of his second term; for example, the 1891 article includes the complete acceptance letter for his first nomination as the democratic candidate for president, while the 1900 edition just cites excerpts. While Appletons' does not disclose the author of this article, the same text, with minor changes, is used in the article on Grover Cleveland in James Grant Wilson's (editor) The Presidents of the United States, 1789-1914 where the author is disclosed as William E. Russell.

CLEVELAND, Grover, twenty-second and
twenty-fourth president of the United States, was
born in Caldwell, Essex co., N. J., 18 March, 1837.
On the paternal side he is of English origin.
Moses Cleveland emigrated from Ipswich, county
of Suffolk, England, in 1635, and settled at
Woburn, Mass., where he died in 1701. His grandson
was Aaron, whose son, Aaron, was
great-great-grandfather of Grover. The second Aaron's grandson,
William, was a silversmith and watchmaker at
Norwich, Conn. His son, Richard Falley Cleveland,
was graduated at Yale in 1824, was ordained
to the Presbyterian ministry in 1829, and in the
same year married Anne Neal, daughter of a Baltimore
merchant of Irish birth. These two were the
parents of Grover Cleveland. The Presbyterian
parsonage at Caldwell, where Mr. Cleveland was
born, was first occupied by the Rev. Stephen Grover,
in whose honor the boy was named; but the
first name was early dropped, and he has been
known as Grover Cleveland. When he was four
years old his father accepted a call to Fayetteville,
near Syracuse, N. Y., where the son had an academy
schooling, and afterward was a clerk in a
country store. The removal of the family to Clinton,
Oneida co., gave Grover additional educational
advantages in the academy there. In his
seventeenth year he became a clerk and an assistant
teacher in the New York institution for the blind
in New York city, in which his elder brother, William,
an alumnus of Hamilton college, now a
Presbyterian clergyman at Forest Port, N. Y., was
then a teacher. In 1855 Grover left Holland Patent,
in Oneida co., where his mother then resided,
to go to the west in search of employment. On
his way he stopped at Black Rock, now a part of
Buffalo, where his uncle, Lewis F. Allen, induced
him to remain and aid him in the compilation of a
volume of the “American Herd-Book,” receiving
for six weeks' service $60. He afterward assisted
in the preparation of several other volumes of this
work, and the preface to the fifth volume (1861)
acknowledges his services. In August, 1855, he
secured a place as clerk and copyist for the law
firm of Rogers, Bowen & Rogers, in Buffalo, began
to read Blackstone, and in the autumn of that year
was receiving four dollars a week for his work.
He was admitted to the bar in 1859, but for three
years longer he remained with the firm that first
employed him, acting as managing clerk at a salary
of $600, soon advanced to $1,000, a part of which
he devoted to the support of his widowed mother,
who died in 1882. He was appointed assistant
district-attorney of Erie co., 1 Jan., 1863, and held
the office for three years. At this time strenuous
efforts were being made to bring the civil war to a
close. Two of Cleveland's brothers were in the
army, and his mother and sisters were dependent
largely upon him for support. Unable to enlist,
he borrowed money to send a substitute, and it
was not till long after the war that he was able to
repay the loan. In 1865, at the age of twenty-eight,
he was the democratic candidate for district
attorney, but was defeated by the republican
candidate, his intimate friend, Lyman K. Bass. He
then became a law partner of Isaac V. Vanderpool,
and in 1869 became a member of the firm of Lanning,
Cleveland & Folsom. He continued a
successful practice till 1870, when he was elected
sheriff of Erie co. At the expiration of his three
years' term he formed a law partnership with his
personal friend and political antagonist, Lyman
K. Bass, the firm being Bass, Cleveland & Bissell,
and, after the forced retirement from failing health
of Mr. Bass, Cleveland & Bissell. The firm was
prosperous, and Cleveland attained high rank as a
lawyer, by the simplicity and directness of his logic
and expression and thorough mastery of his cases.

In 1881 he was nominated as democratic
candidate for mayor of Buffalo, and was elected by
the largest majority ever given to a candidate
in that city prior to that time. In the same
election the republican state ticket was carried in
Buffalo by an average majority of over 1,600; but
Cleveland had a partial republican, independent,
and “reform” movement support. He entered
upon the office, 1 Jan., 1882. He soon became
known as the “veto mayor,” using that prerogative
fearlessly in checking unwise, illegal, or
extravagant expenditure of the public money, and
enforcing strict compliance with the requirements
of the state constitution and the city charter.
By vetoing extravagant appropriations he saved
the city nearly $1,000,000 in the first six months
of his administration. He opposed giving $500 of
the taxpayers' money to the firemen's benevolent
society, on the ground that such appropriation was
not permissible under the terms of the state
constitution and the charter of the city. He vetoed a
resolution diverting $500 from the Fourth of July
appropriation to the observance of Memorial day
for the same reason, and immediately subscribed
one tenth of the sum wanted for the purpose. His
admirable, impartial, and courageous administration
won tributes to his integrity and ability from
the press and the people irrespective of party.

On the second day of the democratic state convention at Syracuse, 22 Sept., 1882, on the third ballot, by a vote of 211 out of 382, Grover Cleveland was nominated for governor, in opposition to
Charles J. Folger, then secretary of the U. S. treasury, nominated for the same office three days before by the republican state convention at Saratoga. In his letter accepting this nomination Mr.
Cleveland wrote: “Public officers are the servants and agents of the people, to execute the laws which the people have made, and within the limits of a
constitution which they have established. . . . We
may, I think, reduce to quite simple elements the
duty which public servants owe, by constantly
bearing in mind that they are put in place to
protect the rights of the people, to answer their needs
as they arise, and to expend for their benefit the
money drawn from them by taxation.”

In the canvass that followed, Cleveland had the
advantage of a united democratic party, and in
addition the support of the entire independent
press of the state. The election in November was
the most remarkable in the political annals of New
York. Both gubernatorial candidates were men
of character and of unimpeachable public record.
Judge Folger had honorably filled high state and
federal offices. But there was a wide-spread
disaffection in the republican ranks largely due to
the belief that the nomination of Folger (nowise
obnoxious in itself) was accomplished by means of
improper and fraudulent practices in the nominating
convention and by the interference of the
federal administration. What were called the
“half-breeds” largely stayed away from the polls, and
in a total vote of 918,894 Cleveland received a
plurality of 192,854 over Folger, and a majority
over all, including greenback, prohibition, and
scattering, of 151,742. He entered upon his office
1 Jan., 1883, in the words of his inaugural address,
“fully appreciating his relations to the people,
and determined to serve them faithfully and well.”
With very limited private means, Gov. Cleveland
lived upon and within his official salary, simply and
unostentatiously, keeping no carriage, and daily
walking to and from his duties at the capitol.

Among the salient acts of his administration
were his approval of a bill to submit to the people
a proposition to abolish contract labor in the
prisons, which they adopted by an overwhelming
majority; his veto of a bill that permitted wide
latitude in the investments of savings banks; and
the veto of a similar bill allowing like latitude in
the investment of securities of fire insurance
companies. He vetoed a bill that was a bold effort to
establish a monopoly by limiting the right to
construct certain street railways to companies heretofore
organized, to the exclusion of such as should
hereafter obtain the consent of property-owners
and local authorities. His much-criticised veto of
the “five-cent-fare” bill, which proposed to reduce
the rates of fare on the elevated roads in New York
city from ten cents to five cents for all hours in
the day, was simply and solely because he considered
the enactment illegal and a breach of the
plighted faith of the state. The general railroad
law of 1850 provides for an examination by state
officers into the earnings of railroads before the
rates of fare can be reduced, and as this imperative
condition had not been complied with previous to
the passage of the bill, he vetoed it. He vetoed
the Buffalo fire department bill because he believed
its provisions would prevent the “economical and
efficient administration of an important department
in a large city,” and subject it to partisan
and personal influences. In the second year of
his administration he approved the bill enacting
important reforms in the appointment and
administration of certain local offices in New York city.
His state administration was only an expansion of
the fundamental principles that controlled his
official action while mayor of Buffalo. Its
integrity, ability, and success made him a prominent
candidate for president.

The democratic national convention met at
Chicago, 8 July, 1884. Three days were devoted
to organization, platform, and speeches in favor of
candidates. In the evening of 10 July a vote was
taken, in which, out of 820 votes, Grover Cleveland
received 392. A two-third vote (557) was
necessary to a nomination. On the following
morning, in the first ballot, Cleveland received 683
votes, and, on motion of Thomas A. Hendricks
(subsequently nominated for the vice-presidency),
the vote was made unanimous. He was officially
notified of his nomination by the convention
committee at Albany, 29 July, and made a modest
response, promising soon to signify in a more formal
manner his acceptance of the nomination, which
he did by letter on 18 Aug., 1884. In it he said,
among other things:

“When an election to office shall be the selection
by the voters of one of their number to assume
for a time a public trust, instead of his dedication
to the profession of politics; when the holders of
the ballot, quickened by a sense of duty, shall
avenge truth betrayed and pledges broken, and
when the suffrage shall be altogether free and
uncorrupted, the full realization of a government by
the people will be at hand. And of the means to
this end, not one would, in my judgment, be more
effective than an amendment to the constitution
disqualifying the president from re-election. . . .

“A true American sentiment recognizes the
dignity of labor, and the fact that honor lies in honest
toil. Contented labor is an element of national
prosperity. Ability to work constitutes the capital
and the wage of labor, the income of a vast number
of our population, and this interest should be
jealously protected. Our working-men are not asking
unreasonable indulgence, but, as intelligent and
manly citizens, they seek the same consideration
which those demand who have other interests at
stake. They should receive their full share of the
care and attention of those who make and execute
the laws, to the end that the wants and needs of
the employers and the employed should alike be
subserved, and the prosperity of the country, the
common heritage of both, be advanced. As
related to this subject, while we should not discourage
the immigration of those who come to
acknowledge allegiance to our government, and add
to our citizen population, yet, as a means of
protection to our working-men, a different rule should
prevail concerning those who, if they come or are
brought to our land, do not intend to become
Americans, but will injuriously compete with
those justly entitled to our field of labor. . . .

“In a free country the curtailment of the absolute rights of the individual should only be such as is essential to the peace and good order of the community. The limit between the proper subjects
of governmental control, and those which can be more fittingly left to the moral sense and self-imposed restraint of the citizen, should be carefully kept in view. Thus, laws unnecessarily
interfering
with the habits and customs of any of our
people which are not offensive to the moral sentiments
of the civilized world, and which are
consistent with good citizenship and the public
welfare, are unwise and vexatious. The commerce of
a nation to a great extent determines its supremacy.
Cheap and easy transportation should therefore
be liberally fostered. Within the limits of
the constitution, the general government should so
improve and protect its natural water-ways as will
enable the producers of the country to reach a
profitable market. . . . If I should be called to
the chief magistracy of the nation by the suffrages
of my fellow-citizens, I will assume the duties of
that high office with a solemn determination to
dedicate every effort to the country's good, and
with a humble reliance upon the favor and
support of the Supreme Being, who I believe will
always bless honest human endeavor in the
conscientious discharge of public duty.”

The canvass that followed was more remarkable
for the discussion of the personal characters and
qualifications of the candidates than for the
prominent presentation of political issues. In the
election (4 Nov.) four candidates were in the field,
viz.: Grover Cleveland, of New York, democratic;
James G. Blaine, of Maine, republican; Benjamin
F. Butler, of Massachusetts, labor and greenback;
John P. St. John, of Kansas, prohibition. The
total popular vote was 10,067,610, divided as follows:
Cleveland, 4,874,986; Blaine, 4,851,981;
Butler, 175,370; St. John, 150,369; blank,
defective, and scattering, 14,904. Of the 401 electoral
votes, Cleveland received 219, and Blaine, 182.

In December the executive committee of the
national civil service reform league addressed a
letter to President-elect Cleveland commending to
his care the interest of civil-service reform. In
his reply, dated 25 Dec., he declared that “a practical
reform in the civil service was demanded”;
that to it he was pledged by his “conception of
true democratic faith and public duty,” as well as
by his past utterances. He added: “There is a
class of government positions which are not within
the letter of the civil-service statute, but which
are so disconnected with the policy of an administration
that the removal therefrom of present
incumbents, in my opinion, should not be made
during the terms for which they were appointed,
solely on partisan grounds, and for the purpose of
putting in their places those who are in political
accord with the appointing power. But many now
holding such positions have forfeited all just
claim to retention, because they have used their
places for party purposes in disregard of their
duty to the people, and because, instead of being
decent public servants, they have proved
themselves offensive partisans and unscrupulous
manipulators of local party management. The lessons
of the past should be unlearned, and such
officials, as well as their successors, should be
taught that efficiency, fitness, and devotion to
public duty are the conditions of their continuance
in public place, and that the quiet and
unobtrusive exercise of individual political rights is
the reasonable measure of their party service. . . .
Selections for office not embraced within the
civil-service rules will be based upon sufficient inquiry
as to fitness, instituted by those charged with that
duty, rather than upon persistent importunity or
self-solicited recommendations on behalf of
candidates for appointment.”

When the New York legislature assembled, 6
Jan., 1885, Mr. Cleveland resigned the governorship
of the state. On 27 Feb. was published a
letter of the president-elect in answer to one
signed by several members of congress, in which
he indicated his opposition to an increased coinage
of silver, and suggested a suspension of the
purchase and coinage of that metal as a measure of
safety, in order to prevent a financial crisis and
the ultimate expulsion of gold by silver. His
inaugural address was written during the ten
days previous to his setting out for Washington.
On 4 March he went to the capital in company
with President Arthur, and after the usual
preliminaries had been completed he delivered his
inaugural address from the eastern steps of the
capitol. in the presence of a vast concourse. At
its conclusion the oath of office was administered
by Chief-Justice Waite. He then reviewed from
the White House the inaugural parade, a procession
numbering more than 100,000 men. In the
address he urged the people of all parties to lay
aside political animosities in order to sustain the
government. He declared his approval of the
Monroe doctrine as a guide in foreign relations, of
strict economy in the administration of the finances,
of the protection of the Indians and their elevation
to citizenship, of the security of the freedmen
in their rights, and of the laws against Mormon
polygamy and the importation of a servile class of
foreign laborers. In respect to appointments to
office, he said that the people demand the
application of business principles to public affairs, and
also that the people have a right to protection
from the incompetency of public employees, who
hold their places solely as a reward for partisan
service, and those who worthily seek public
employment have a right to insist that merit and
competency shall be recognized instead of party
subserviency or the surrender of honest political
belief. On the following day he sent to the senate
the nominations for his cabinet officers as follows:
Secretary of State, Thomas F. Bayard, of Delaware;
secretary of the treasury, Daniel Manning,
of New York; secretary of war, William C. Endicott,
of Massachusetts; secretary of the navy,
William C. Whitney, of New York; postmaster-general,
William F. Vilas, of Wisconsin; attorney-general,
Augustus H. Garland, of Arkansas;
secretary of the interior, Lucius Q. C. Lamar, of
Mississippi. The nominations were promptly
confirmed. On 12 March, 1885, President Cleveland
withdrew from the senate, which met in extra
session to take action on appointments and other
business connected with the new administration,
the Spanish reciprocity and Nicaragua canal
treaties, in order that they might be considered by
the new executive. On 13 March he issued a
proclamation announcing the intention of the
government to remove from the Oklahoma country, in
Indian territory, the white intruders who sought
to settle there, which was done shortly afterward
by a detachment of soldiers. By his refusal at
once to remove certain officials for the purpose of
putting in their place members of his own party,
he came into conflict with many influential men,
who advocated the speedy removal of republican
office-holders and the appointment of democrats,
in order to strengthen the party as a political
organization. At the same time the republicans
and some of the civil-service reformers complained
of other appointments as not being in accord with
the professions of the president. “Offensive
partisanship” was declared by the president to be
a ground for removal, and numerous republican
functionaries were displaced under that rule,
while the term became a common phrase in political
nomenclature. When disturbances threatened to break out between the Cheyennes and the Arapahoes
in Indian territory, Gen. Sheridan, at the request
of the president, visited that country in order to
study the cause of the troubles. He reported that
the threatened outbreak was the result of the
occupation of Indian lands by cattle-owners who
leased vast areas from the Indians at a merely
nominal rental. The legal officers of the government
decided that these leases were contrary to
law and invalid. The president thereupon issued
a proclamation warning all cattle companies and
ranchmen to remove their herds from Indian
territory within forty days, and enforced the order,
notwithstanding their strenuous objection.

In his message at the opening of the first session
of the 49th congress on 8 Dec., 1885, President
Cleveland recommended increased appropriations
for the consular and diplomatic service, the
abolition of duties on works of art, the reduction of
the tariff on necessaries of life, the suspension of
compulsory silver coinage, the improvement of the
navy, the appointment of six general Indian
commissioners, reform in the laws under which titles
to the public lands are required from the government,
more stringent laws for the suppression of
polygamy in Utah, an act to prohibit the
immigration of Mormons, the extension of the principle
of civil-service reform, and an increase in the
salaries of the commissioners, and the passage of
a law to determine the order of presidential
succession in the event of a vacancy. The senate,
sitting in secret session for the consideration of
the president's appointments, called for the papers
on file in the departments relating to the causes
for which certain officers had been removed. Upon
the refusal of the president to submit the documents
to their inspection, a dispute ensued, and
threats were uttered by republican senators that
no appointments should be confirmed unless their
right to inspect papers on the official files was
conceded. On 1 March, 1886, he sent a long
message to the senate, in which he took the ground
that under the constitution the right of removal or
suspension from office lay entirely within the
power and discretion of the president; that
sections of the tenure-of-office act requiring him to
report to the senate reasons for suspending officers
had been repealed; and that the papers that
the senate demanded to see were not official, but
were of a personal and private nature. Eventually
most of the appointments of the president were
ratified. During the first fiscal year of his
administration the proportion of postmasters throughout
the country removed or suspended was but little
larger than had often followed a change of
administration in the same political party.

In his second annual message he called the
attention of congress to the large excess of the
revenues of the country beyond the needs of the
government, and urged such a reduction as would
release to the people the increasing and unnecessary
surplus of national income, by such an amendment
of the revenue laws as would cheapen the
price of the necessaries of life and give freer
entrance, to such imported materials as could be
manufactured by American labor into marketable
commodities. He recommended the erection
of coast defences on land, and the construction of
modern ships of war for the navy; argued for the
civilization of the Indians by the dissolution of
tribal relations, the settlement of their reservations
in severalty, and the correction of abuses in the
disposition of the public lands. He urged the
adoption of liberal general pension laws to meet
all possible cases, and protested against special
legislation for a favored few, as an injustice to the
many who were equally deserving.

He approved a bill to regulate the questions
arising between the railroads and the people, and
appointed an interstate commerce commission
under its provisions. A number of bills providing
for the erection of public buildings in various
parts of the country were vetoed, on the ground
that they were not required by the public business;
and while he approved 186 private pension bills,
he vetoed 42 for various reasons; some being
covered by general laws, others were to his mind
unworthy and fraudulent, and others were not so
favorable to the claimant as the general laws
already passed. A dependent pension bill, permitting
a pension of $12 per month to all soldiers and
sailors who served in the war for the Union, upon
the ground of service and present disability alone,
whether incurred in the service or since, was
vetoed, on the ground that a sufficient time had not
elapsed since the war to justify a general service
pension; that its terms were too uncertain and
yielding to insure its just and impartial execution;
that the honest soldiers of the country would prefer
not to be regarded as objects of charity, as was
proposed; and that its enactment would put a
wholly uncalled-for and enormous annual burden
upon the country for very many years to come.
The veto was sustained by congress. Vetoing an
appropriation for the distribution of seeds to
drought-stricken counties of Texas, he said:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation
in the constitution; and I do not believe that
the power and duty of the general government
ought to be extended to the relief of individual
suffering which in no manner properly related to
the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency
to disregard the limited mission of this power
and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted,
to the end that the lesson should be constantly
enforced that though the people support the
government, the government should not support the
people.”

As he had done while governor, so now as president,
Mr. Cleveland exercised the veto power with
great freedom. This was particularly true during
the session of congress which ended 5 Aug., 1886,
when of 987 bills which passed both houses he
vetoed 115.

In October, 1886, accompanied by Mrs. Cleveland
and several personal friends, the president
made a tour of the west and south in response to
invitations from those sections, which involved
about 5,000 miles of railroad travel and occupied
three weeks. He was enthusiastically received by
the people, and made speeches at Indianapolis,
St. Louis, Chicago, Minneapolis, Kansas City,
Atlanta, and other cities. In December, 1887,
departing from custom, he devoted his annual
message to the presentation of a single subject,
namely, the reduction of the tariff. He advocated
a radical modification of the existing policy by the
adoption of a law framed with a view to the ultimate
establishment of the principles of free trade.
The republicans immediately took up the issue
thus presented, and the question at once became
a predominant issue of the canvass. Cleveland was unanimously renominated by the national
democratic convention in St. Louis on 5 June,
1888. The efforts of both parties were directed
chiefly to the doubtful states of Indiana, New York,
New Jersey, and Connecticut. Cleveland carried
all the southern states, and in the north New
Jersey and Connecticut, while of the doubtful states
Gen. Harrison received the votes of New York and
Indiana. Of the electoral votes Harrison received
233, Cleveland 168. The popular vote for Cleveland
numbered 5,540,329, that for Harrison 5,439,8??.

At the close of his administration, on 4 March,
1889, Mr. Cleveland retired to New York city,
where he re-entered upon the practice of his
profession. As a private citizen he continued to
exert a powerful influence upon his party and
public sentiment by frequent expression of his
opinions on important public questions. These
expressions were always based upon an implicit
belief that the integrity and justice of the people
would not tolerate demagogism, but demanded of
any leader the truth fearlessly spoken. Conscious
of a strong public demand that he should again
be the democratic candidate for president, and of
the personal consequence to him of his every word
and act, he constantly stated his views with the
courage and candor which had characterized his
whole public life. A notable instance of this was
his famous letter of 10 Feb., 1891, addressed to a
public meeting in New York city, which had been
called to protest against a bill then pending in
congress for the free and unlimited coinage of
silver. There was grave danger that the bill
would be enacted. Behind it was a strong public
sentiment, including probably a majority in
congress of his own party. His opposition insured, it
was believed, the failure of the bill, but also of all
chance for his renomination. Yet, impelled by a
sense of public duty which would not consider
personal consequences, he declared his belief “that
the greatest peril would be invited by the adoption
of the scheme”; and he denounced “the
dangerous and reckless experiment of free, unlimited
and independent silver coinage.” The bill was
defeated. Notwithstanding the opposition and
predictions of many leaders of his party, the demand
for his renomination steadily increased. The great
cause of tariff reform, which as president he had
championed and which had carried the country in
the elections of 1890, was evidently to be the
principal issue in the campaign of 1892, and he was the
natural and logical leader. At the national
democratic convention which met in Chicago, 22 June,
1892, he was nominated on the first ballot, receiving
more than two-thirds of the votes of the
convention, though bitterly and unanimously opposed
by the delegation from his own state. In his speech
of acceptance delivered to a great audience in Madison
Square Garden, New York, and later in his formal
letter of acceptance of 26 Sept., 1892, he emphasized
the need of tariff reform, and made it the leading
issue between the parties. In his letter he said:

“Tariff reform is still our purpose. Though we
oppose the theory that tariff laws may be passed
having for their object the granting of discriminating
and unfair governmental aid to private
ventures, we wage no exterminating war against
any American interests. We believe a readjustment
can be accomplished, in accordance with the
principles we profess, without disaster or demolition.
We believe that the advantages of freer raw
material should be accorded to our manufacturers,
and we contemplate a fair and careful distribution
of necessary tariff burdens, rather than the
precipitation of free trade.”

He denounced “the attempt of the opponents of
democracy to interfere with and control the
suffrage of the states through federal agencies” as
“a design, which no explanation can mitigate, to
reverse the fundamental and safe relations
between the people and their government.” He
advocated “sound and honest money,” declaring:
“Whatever may be the form of the people's
currency, national or state whether gold, silver, or
paper it should be so regulated and guarded by
governmental action, or by wise and careful laws,
that no one can be deluded as to the certainty and
stability of its value. Every dollar put into the
hands of the people should be of the same intrinsic
value or purchasing power. With this condition
absolutely guaranteed, both gold and silver can
safely be utilized upon equal terms in the adjustment
of our currency.” He also urged “an honest
adherence to the letter and spirit of civil service
reform,” “liberal consideration for our worthy
veteran soldiers and for the families of those who
have died,” but insisting that “ur pension roll
should be a roll of honor, uncontaminated by ill
desert and unvitiated by demagogic use.”

After a most vigorous campaign and a thorough
discussion of important principles and measures,
the democratic party won an overwhelming
victory, reversing the electoral vote of 1888 and
largely increasing its popular plurality, and carrying
both the senate and house of representatives.
The ticket carried twenty-three states,
including the doubtful states of New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut, and Indiana, and for the first
time in years in a presidential contest Illinois and
Wisconsin. The popular vote was 5,553,142 for
Cleveland, 5,186,931 for Harrison, 1,030,128 for
Weaver, of the “people's party,” and 268,361 for
Bidwell, the prohibitionist. In the electoral
college Mr. Cleveland received 276 votes. Gen. Harrison
145, and Mr. Weaver 23. On 4 March, 1893,
Mr. Cleveland was for a second time inaugurated
president, being the first instance in this country
of a president re-elected after an interim. He
immediately nominated, and the senate promptly
confirmed as his cabinet Walter Q. Gresham,
of Indiana, secretary of state; John G. Carlisle, of
Kentucky, secretary of the treasury; Daniel S.
Lament, of New York, secretary of war; Richard
Olney, of Massachusetts, attorney-general; Wilson
S. Bissell, of New York, postmaster-general;
Hilary A. Herbert, of Alabama, secretary of the
navy; Hoke Smith, of Georgia, secretary of the
interior; and J. Sterling Morton, of Nebraska,
secretary of agriculture. Judge Gresham died on
28 May, 1895, having held office but a few months,
and was succeeded by the attorney-general, Mr.
Olney, whose place was taken by Judson Harmon,
of Ohio. A little later postmaster-general Bissell
resigned and was succeeded by William L. Wilson,
of Virginia. In August, 1896, Secretary Smith
resigned and the president appointed in his place
David R. Francis, of Missouri.

Grave and difficult questions at once confronted his administration. A treaty for the annexation of the Hawaiian islands to the territory of the United States had, on 14 Feb., 1893, been
concluded between President Harrison and commissioners representing a provisional government of the islands, and had been transmitted to the senate on the day following, but had not yet been acted upon. The provisional government had been established on 17 Jan., 1893, by the overthrow of the constitutional ruler of the islands. Serious doubts existed as to the authority and validity of
the provisional government and as to the part taken by our government, through our ministers
and troops, in aiding its establishment. President
Harrison, in his message to the senate submitting
the treaty, declared that “the overthrow of the
monarchy was not in any way promoted by this
government.” On the other hand, the queen and
her ministers filed with the treaty a protest, asserting
that when she yielded to the provisional
government she had yielded to the superior force of
the United States. In order that this vital
question of fact might be impartially investigated and
determined, President Cleveland at once withdrew
the treaty from the senate and despatched James
H. Blount, of Georgia, as a special commissioner
to make full examination and report.

On 18 Dec., 1893, in a special message to
congress, he transmitted the report of the
commissioner with all the evidence and papers connected
with the case. In his message, after reviewing all
the facts and confirming the finding of the
commissioner, he declared that he believed “that a
candid and thorough examination of the facts will
force the conviction that the provisional government
owes its existence to an armed invasion by
the United States. . . . The lawful government of
Hawaii was overthrown without the drawing of a
sword or the firing of a shot, by a process every
step of which, it may safely be asserted, is directly
traceable to and dependent for its success upon
the agency of the United States acting through
its diplomatic and naval representatives.”

Referring to the principles which should govern
the case, he said: “I suppose that right and
justice should determine the path to be followed in
treating this subject. If national honesty is to be
disregarded and a desire for territorial extension or
dissatisfaction with a form of government not our
own ought to regulate our conduct, I have entirely
misapprehended the mission and character of our
government and the behaviour which the conscience
of our people demands of their public servants. . . .

“ A man of true honor protects the unwritten
word which binds his conscience more scrupulously,
if possible, than he does the bond, a breach of
which subjects him to legal liabilities; and the
United States, in aiming to maintain itself as one
of the most enlightened of nations, would do its
citizens gross injustice if it applied to its
international relations any other than a high standard of
honor and morality. On that ground the United
States can not properly be put in the position of
countenancing a wrong after its commission any
more than in that of consenting to it in advance.
On that ground it can not allow itself to refuse to
redress an injury inflicted through an abuse of
power by officers clothed with its authority and
wearing its uniform; and on the same ground, if a
feeble but friendly state is in danger of being
robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by
a misuse of the name and power of the United
States, the United States can not fail to vindicate
its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest
effort to make all possible reparation. . . .

“These principles apply to the present case with
irresistible force when the special conditions of the
queen's surrender of her sovereignty are recalled.
She surrendered not to the provisional government,
but to the United States. She surrendered
not absolutely and permanently, but temporarily
and conditionally until such time as the facts can
be considered by the United States. . . .

“ By an act of war, committed with the
participation of a diplomatic representative of the United
States and without authority of congress, the
government of a feeble but friendly and confiding
people has been overthrown. A substantial wrong
has thus been done which a due regard for our
national character as well as the rights of the injured
people require we should endeavor to repair.”

He concluded by informing congress that he
should not again submit the treaty of annexation to
the senate; that he had instructed our minister
“to advise the queen and her supporters of his
desire to aid in the restoration of the status existing
before the lawless landing of the U. S. forces
at Honolulu on 16 Jan. last, if such restoration
could be effected upon terms providing for
clemency as well as justice to all parties concerned”;
and he commended the subject “to the extended
powers and wide discretion of congress” for a
solution “consistent with American honor, integrity,
and morality.”

These proposals of the president met with
strong opposition in congress, and in February,
1894, the senate committee on foreign relations
made a report upholding Minister Stevens in his
course with relation to the revolution. Previous
to this, in December, 1893, Mr. Willis, the U. S.
minister, had formally announced the president's
policy to President Dole, who had returned a formal
refusal to give up the government in accordance
with that policy, at the same time denying
the right of Mr. Cleveland to interfere. On 7
Feb., 1894, the house of representatives passed by
a vote of 177 to 75 a resolution upholding Mr.
Cleveland's course and condemning annexation, but
a similar resolution was tabled in the senate, 36 to
18, on 29 May, and on 31 May a resolution was
adopted against interference by the United States.
On 4 July, 1894, the constitution of the republic
of Hawaii was formally proclaimed by the
revolutionary government, and Mr. Dole was declared
president until December, 1900. The U. S. senate
passed a resolution favoring the recognition of the
new republic, and thus the matter practically
passed out of Mr. Cleveland's hands.

This was not the only question of foreign policy
that was forced upon the administration. Early
in 1895 an insurrection broke out on the island of
Cuba. Mr. Cleveland at once took measures
against violation of the neutrality laws, and in his
message in December he appealed for the observation
of strict neutrality as a “plain duty.”
Sympathy with the insurgents was wide-spread,
however, and it became increasingly difficult to detect
filibustering expeditions, and still more so to indict
and convict those guilty of violations of neutrality.
The administration was blamed in Spain for
supposed failure to enforce the law, and in the United
States for attempting to enforce it too stringently.
Strong efforts were made to induce the administration
to recognize the insurgents as belligerents,
and in April, 1896, a resolution in favor of such
recognition passed both houses of congress. Mr.
Cleveland disregarded these resolutions as being
an attempt to invade the prerogative of the
executive, and Secretary Olney stated publicly that
the administration regarded them merely as “an
expression of opinion on the part of a number of
eminent gentlemen.” Besides the resolutions
just referred to others were introduced at various
times providing for intervention, for special
investigation, and for recognition of the Cuban republic.
On 3 June, 1896, Mr. Cleveland sent Fitzhugh
Lee to Havana as consul-general in place
of Ramon O. Williams, and it was generally
believed that Gen. Lee was expected to act in some
sense as a special commissioner of the president,
to report to him on the state of affairs in the
island. Many expected that the appointment would be only a preliminary to intervention, but
the administration, though instructing Gen. Lee
to guard the rights of American residents,
continued to watch for filibustering expeditions and
to intercept them when this was possible; and in
July, 1890, the president issued a second proclamation
of neutrality, repeating in more explicit
terms the one that had been put forth in 1895.
Relations with Spain continued to require delicate
management during the whole of the administration,
the more notable events being the firing on
the American steamer “Allianca” by a Spanish
gunboat, for which apology was ultimately made by
Spain, the condemnation to death of the crew of the
alleged filibustering schooner “Competitor,” which
was finally suspended upon representation that the
prisoners had not received the trial by civil
tribunal to which they were entitled by treaty, and
the settlement by Spain, on 14 Sept., 1895, of the
long-standing claim of 1,500,000 pesos, as
indemnity for the condemnation to death, in 1870, of
Antonio Mora, a naturalized American citizen, and
the confiscation of his estates. It was charged by
the enemies of the administration that this
payment was made in pursuance of a secret agreement
by which the United States bound itself to vigilant
action in the suppression of filibustering.

But the most conspicuous event in the relations
of the administration with foreign countries was
undoubtedly President Cleveland's Venezuela
message, the act most highly praised as well as the
most severely condemned of his whole public
career. In his message to congress on 2 Dec., 1895,
Mr. Cleveland called attention to the long-standing
boundary dispute between Great Britain and
Venezuela, and to the efforts of the U. S.
government to induce the disputants to settle it by
arbitration. Previously, in July, Secretary Olney,
in a despatch to the American ambassador in London,
had called attention to the peculiar interest of
the United States in the dispute, owing to the
relation of that dispute to the Monroe doctrine, and
again urging arbitration. On 26 Nov. Lord Salisbury
returned an answer in which he denied that
the interests of the United States were necessarily
concerned in such disputes, and refused to arbitrate
except in regard to territory lying to the west of
the Schomburgk line a line surveyed by Great
Britain in 1841-'4.

These despatches were sent to congress on 17 Dec.
together with a special message in which Mr. Cleveland
stated that, as Great Britain had refused to
arbitrate the dispute, it now became the duty of
the United States to determine the boundary line
by diligent inquiry, and asked for a special
appropriation to defray the expenses of a commission to
be appointed by the executive for that purpose.
This commission was to report without delay.
“When such report is made and accepted,” the
message went on, “it will, in my opinion, be the
duty of the United States to resist by every means
in its power, as a wilful aggression upon its rights
and interests, the appropriation by Great Britain of
any lands or the exercise of governmental jurisdiction
over any territory which, after investigation, we
have determined of right to belong to Venezuela.”

This message caused great excitement both in
this country and Great Britain, being regarded as
equivalent to a threat of war. The president's
course, however, was almost unanimously upheld
by both parties in congress, which immediately
authorized the appointment of a boundary
commission, and this commission was immediately
constituted by the appointment of Justice David J.
Brewer, of the U. S. supreme court; Chief-Justice
Alvey, of the court of appeals of the District of
Columbia; Andrew D. White, of New York;
Frederick R. Coudert, of New York; and Daniel C.
Gilman, president of Johns Hopkins university.

The commission began at once to take testimony
and accumulated a vast amount of data, but before
it was prepared to make its formal report, the
excitement due to the message had subsided on both
sides of the Atlantic, and an agreement was reached
through diplomatic channels by which Great Britain
bound herself to arbitrate her dispute with
Venezuela, thus terminating the incident. The
conclusion of this controversy was widely regarded
as the first formal acquiescence by a European
power in the Monroe doctrine, or, at any rate, in
the application of that doctrine to warrant the
exercise by the United States of virtual protection
over the smaller American states. The Venezuelan
arbitration treaty was signed at Washington
by Sir Julian Pauncefote for England and Minister
Andrade for Venezuela, on 2 Feb. According
to its provisions, President Cleveland designated as
arbitrator, on behalf of the United States, Justice
Brewer, of the supreme court, while the Venezuelan
government named Chief-Justice Fuller, and
Great Britain appointed Lord Herschell and
Justice Collins.

Some minor events in the relations of the
administration with foreign governments were as
follows: In 1896 great sympathy was excited throughout
the country by the Armenian massacres, and
in congress many efforts were made to bring about
the active interference of the United States in
Turkish affairs, either on broad humanitarian
grounds or because of specific cases of injuries
suffered by American missionaries. It was
believed also that the United States should have a
war ship at Constantinople, and when Turkey
refused to grant to this country the privilege of
sending an armed ship through the Dardanelles,
there were many rumors of an impending attempt
at a forcible passage. The administration,
however, continually denied any such intention, and,
although the “Bancroft,” a small war vessel,
originally intended for a practice-ship, was sent to the
Mediterranean, as was believed, that she might be
in readiness to act as a guardship should she be
required to do so, no occasion arose for her use, the
American squadron in Turkish waters, larger than
for many years previous, being such as to compel
proper treatment of American citizens.

Owing to the repeated efforts, especially in the
Pacific states, to restrict Chinese immigration, laws
had been passed by congress, which were agreed to
by China in a special treaty concluded at
Washington, 17 March, 1894. By this treaty Chinese
laborers were prohibited entering the country, and
those already residing in the United States were
required to be registered. On 3 May, 1894, the
time fixed by congress for this registration
expired. There was great objection to this feature
of the law, and large numbers of Chinese had failed
to register. The law provided that all such should
be deported, but finally the administration decided
that as no means had been provided for this
purpose no steps should be taken to carry out the
deportation clause.

The seal-fishery question, which it had been hoped was settled by the Paris tribunal, continued to come in different forms before the administration. President Cleveland had urged in one of his
messages that congress should sanction the payment of $425,000, agreed upon between Secretary Gresham and the British minister as compensation for Canadian vessels seized unlawfully by the U. S. authorities, but congress failed to appropriate the
amount, and the claims remained unsettled. The
customary yearly proclamations against poaching
were issued, but, owing to the inadequacy of the
provisions for its prevention adopted by the Paris
tribunal, the seal herd continued to decrease.

To pass from foreign to domestic affairs, the
unsettled financial state of the country during a large
part of Mr. Cleveland's second term first demands
notice. On 8 Aug., 1893, the president convened
congress in special session because, as stated in his
message of that date, of “the existence of an alarming
and extraordinary business situation, involving
the welfare and prosperity of all our people,”
and to the end that “through a wise and patriotic
exercise of the legislative duties . . . present evils
may be mitigated and dangers threatening the
future may be averted.” The country was in the
midst of a financial crisis, largely due, it was
believed, to past unsound legislation, under which
the gold reserve had been diminishing, silver
accumulating, and expenditures exceeding revenue.
Confidence had become impaired and credit shaken.
Business interests and the conservative sentiment
of the country demanded the repeal of the provisions
of the act of 14 July, 1890 (popularly known
as the Sherman act), which required the monthly
purchase of four and one-half million ounces of silver
and the issue of treasury notes in payment
therefor. Such repeal the president strongly
recommended, declaring that “our unfortunate financial
plight is not the result of untoward events, nor
of conditions related to our natural resources; nor
is it traceable to any of the afflictions which
frequently check natural growth and prosperity,” but
is “principally chargeable to congressional legislation
touching the purchase and coinage of silver
by the general government.” Reviewing such
legislation, he said: “The knowledge in business
circles among our own people that our government
can not make its fiat equivalent to intrinsic value,
nor keep inferior money on a parity with superior
money by its own independent efforts, has resulted
in such a lack of confidence at home in the stability
of currency values that capital refuses its aid
to new enterprises, while millions are actually
withdrawn from the channels of trade and commerce,
to become idle and unproductive in the hands of
timid owners. Foreign investors, equally alert,
not only decline to purchase American securities,
but make haste to sacrifice those which they
already have.” He insisted that “the people of the
United States are entitled to a sound and stable
currency, and to money recognized as such on every
exchange and in every market of the world. Their
government has no right to injure them by financial
experiments opposed to the policy and practice
of other civilized states, nor is it justified in
permitting an exaggerated and unreasonable reliance
on our national strength and ability to
jeopardize the soundness of the people's money.”

The house promptly, and by a large majority,
repealed the obnoxious provisions. In the senate a
strong and determined minority resisted the repeal,
and, taking advantage of the unlimited debate
there permitted, delayed action for many weeks.
In the heat of the contest a compromise was
practically agreed upon in the senate, which was
defeated only by the firm opposition of the president.
He insisted upon unconditional repeal, which was
finally enacted 1 Nov., 1893.

Soon after, one of the suggested measures of
compromise, which provided among other things
for the immediate coinage of so much of the silver
bullion in the treasury as represented the
seigniorage
(declared to be $55,156,681), was embodied in
a bill which passed both houses of congress. This
bill the president vetoed as “ill-advised and
dangerous.” He said: “Sound finance does not
commend a further infusion of silver into our currency
at this time unaccompanied by further adequate
provision for the maintenance in our treasury of a
safe gold reserve.”

At the first regular session of the fifty-third
congress, opened 4 Dec., 1893, the question of tariff
revision was at once considered. In his message of
that date the president, after reviewing the work
and needs of the various departments of government,
dwelt with special emphasis on the necessity
of immediately undertaking this important reform.

“Manifestly, if we are to aid the people directly
through tariff reform, one of its most obvious
features should be a reduction in present tariff charges
upon the necessaries of life. The benefits of such
a reduction would be palpable and substantial, seen
and felt by thousands who would be better fed and
better clothed and better sheltered. . . .

“Not less closely related to our people's
prosperity and well-being is the removal of restrictions
upon the importation of the raw materials necessary
to our manufactures. The world should be
open to our national ingenuity and enterprise.
This can not be while federal legislation, through
the imposition of high tariff, forbids to American
manufacturers as cheap materials as those used by
their competitors.”

A tariff bill, substantially following the lines
suggested by the president and providing among other
things for free wool, coal, iron ore, and lumber, was
framed by the committee on ways and means, and,
with the addition of free sugar and an income tax,
passed the house on 1 Feb., 1894. In the senate
the bill was amended in many items, and generally
in the direction of higher duties. After five months
of prolonged discussion the bill, as amended, passed
the senate by a small majority, all the democrats
voting for it except Senator Hill, of New York. It
was then referred to a conference committee of
both houses to adjust the differences between them.
A long and determined contest was there waged,
principally over the duties upon coal, iron ore, and
sugar. It was understood that a small group of
democratic senators had, contrary to the express
wishes and pledges of their party and by threats
of defeating the bill, forced higher duties in
important schedules. While the bill was pending
before the conference committee the president, in a
letter to Mr. Wilson, the chairman of the ways and
means committee, which later was read to the
house, strongly urged adherence to the position
which the house had taken.

The house, however, finally receded from its
position in the belief that any other course would
defeat or long delay any reduction of the tariff, and
that the business interests of the country demanded
an end to the conflict. The bill, as amended, passed
both houses, and at midnight of 27 Aug., 1894,
became a law without the signature of the president.
In a published letter of the same date he gave his
reasons for withholding his approval. While he
believed the bill was a vast improvement over
existing conditions, and would certainly lighten many
tariff burdens which rested heavily on the people,
he said: “I take my place with the rank and file
of the democratic party who believe in tariff
reform and well know what it is, who refuse to accept
the results embodied in this bill as the close of the
war, who are not blinded to the fact that the livery
of democratic tariff reform has been stolen and worn
in the service of republican protection, and who have marked the places where the deadly blight of
treason has blasted the councils of the brave in
their hour of might. The trusts and combinations
the communism of pelf whose machinations
have prevented us from reaching the success we
deserve, should not be forgotten nor forgiven.”

The close of the year 1894 was marked by financial
depression, by a larger deficit than had been
expected, and by a decline in the revenue.
Although the Sherman act had been repealed, no
progress had been made with the scheme presented
by Secretary Carlisle for reducing the paper
currency and providing for an adequate reserve. The
reserve was threatened twice, and the president
was obliged to make use of the power given under
the resumption acts, by issuing $50,000,000 worth
of five-per-cent ten-year bonds for the purchase of
gold. In his message to the last session of the
53d congress he stated that he should employ his
borrowing power “whenever and as often as it
becomes necessary to maintain a sufficient gold
reserve and in abundant time to save the credit of
our country and make good the financial declarations
of our government.”

In February, 1895, the gold reserve had fallen
to $41,000,000, and Mr. Cleveland asked congress
for permission to issue three-per-cent bonds payable
in gold. This being denied him, he issued four-per-cent
thirty-year bonds redeemable in coin, to the
amount of $62,000,000. In June, 1895, the supreme
court decided by a majority of one that the income
tax that had been imposed by the Wilson bill was
unconstitutional, and the treasury thus lost a source
of revenue that it had been estimated would yield
$30,000,000 yearly. In his message of December,
1895, the president recommended a general reform
of the banking and currency laws, including the
retirement and cancellation of the greenbacks and
treasury coin notes by exchange for low-interest
U. S. bonds; but congress failed to act on this
recommendation. Gold exports continued, and in
January preparations were made for a new loan.
An invitation was issued asking applications for
$50 thirty-year four-per-cent bonds to the amount
of $100,000,000 before 6 Feb.. European bankers
held back, a free-coinage bill having been
meanwhile reported favorably in the senate, but
Americans subscribed freely, and the treasury obtained
$111,000,000 in this way. This success was
contrasted by Mr. Cleveland's opponents with his
policy in the loan of 1895, which was made by
contract with a syndicate of bankers; but it was
pointed out in favor of that policy that it was the
only course possible in a sudden emergency, and
that such an emergency did not exist in 1896.

On 29 May the president vetoed a river and harbor
bill that provided for the immediate expenditure
of $17,000,000, and authorized contracts for
$62,000,000 more, but it was passed over his veto.

In July, 1894, serious labor troubles arose in Illinois
and other states of the west, beginning with a
strike of the employees of the Pullman palace car
company, and spreading over many of the railroads
centring in Chicago. Travel was interrupted, the
mails delayed, and interstate commerce obstructed.
So wide-spread became the trouble, involving
constant acts of violence and lawlessness, and so grave
was the crisis, that military force was necessary,
especially in Chicago, to preserve the peace,
enforce the laws, and protect property. The president,
with commendable firmness and promptness,
fully met the emergency. Acting under authority
vested in him by law, he ordered a large force of
U. S. troops to Chicago to remove obstructions to
the mails and interstate commerce, and to enforce
the laws of the United States and the process of
the federal courts; and on 8 and 9 July issued
proclamations commanding the dispersion of all
unlawful assemblages within the disturbed states.
The governor of Illinois objected to the presence
of the troops without his sanction or request. In
answer to his protest the president telegraphed:
“Federal troops were sent to Chicago in strict
accordance with the constitution and laws of the
United States upon the demand of the post-office
department that obstruction of the mails should
be removed, and upon the representations of the
judicial officers of the United States that process
of the federal courts could not be executed through
the ordinary means, and upon abundant proof that
conspiracies existed against commerce between the
states. To meet these conditions, which are clearly
within the province of federal authority, the
presence of federal troops in the city of Chicago was
deemed not only proper, but necessary, and there
has been no intention of thereby interfering with
the plain duty of the local authorities to preserve
the peace of the city.”

To a farther protest and argument of the governor
the president replied: “While I am still
persuaded that I have transcended neither my authority
nor duty in the emergency that confronts us, it
seems to me that in this hour of danger and public
distress discussion may well give way to active effort
on the part of the authorities to restore obedience
to the law and to protect life and property.”

The decisive action of the president restored
order, ended the strike, and received the commendation
of both houses of congress and of the people
generally. The president then appointed a
commission to investigate the causes of the strike. It
is interesting to note in this connection that by
special message to congress of 22 April, 1886, President
Cleveland had strongly recommended legislation
which should provide for the settlement by
arbitration of controversies of this character.

Early in May, 1896, Mr. Cleveland issued an
order by which 30,000 additional posts in the civil
service were placed on the list of those requiring a
certificate from the civil-service commissioners,
thus raising the number on this list to 86,000.
When he first became president there were only
13,000 appointments out of 130,000 for which any
test of the kind was required.

In Mr. Cleveland's last annual message, after
declaring that the agreement between Great Britain
and the United States regarding the Venezuela
boundary question had practically removed that
question from the field of controversy, he added
that “negotiations for a treaty of general arbitration
for all differences between Great Britain and
the United States are far advanced and promise to
reach a successful consummation at an early date.”
On 11 Jan., 1897, a treaty between Great Britain
and the United States for the establishment by the
two countries of such an international tribunal of
general arbitration was signed by Secretary Olney
and Sir Julian Pauncefote at Washington, and sent
by President Cleveland to the senate. This treaty
was hailed with great satisfaction by all friends of
arbitration. The preamble stated that the articles
of the treaty were agreed to and concluded because
the two countries concerned are “desirous of
consolidating the relations of amity which so happily
exist, between them and of consecrating by treaty
the principle of international arbitration.” No
reservation was made regarding the subject-matter
of disputes to be arbitrated. Matters involving
pecuniary claims amounting to $500,000 or less
were to be settled by three arbitrators, consisting of two jurists of repute and an umpire, the latter
to be appointed by the king of Sweden in case the
arbitrators should not agree upon one. All other
claims, except those involving territory, were to go
first before such a tribunal, but in case the decision
should not be unanimous it was to be reviewed
before a similar tribunal of five. Boundary
questions were to go to a special court of six members
three U. S. judges and three British judges.
The treaty was to continue in force for five years,
and thereafter until twelve months after either of
the contracting parties should give notice to the
other of a desire to terminate it.

On 1 Feb. the foreign relations committee of
the senate reported favorably on this treaty with
amendments that were regarded by the friends of
the treaty as making it practically of no effect.
Even in this form the treaty, on 5 May, failed to
receive the two-thirds majority necessary for
confirmation, the vote being 43 to 26. It was generally
believed that personal hostility to Mr. Cleveland
had much to do with the rejection. There had
been for some time a feeling in the senate that the
president and his secretary of state had not
deferred sufficiently to the rights of that body in
matters of foreign policy. Mr. Olney's statement
in the Cuban matter, noticed above, had much to
do with strengthening this feeling, and although
the secretary's position in this matter was generally
sustained by constitutional lawyers it doubtless
had its effect in still further estranging many
senators from the administration. Another difference
of opinion of the same kind occurred in the
case of certain extradition treaties negotiated by
Secretary Olney with the Argentine Republic and
the Orange Free State. In these treaties, by the
president's desire, as was understood, a clause was
incorporated providing for the surrender of American
citizens to the authorities of a foreign country
provided such citizens have been guilty of
crime within the jurisdiction of the country that
demands their return. This was intended to
prevent this country from becoming an asylum for
European criminals, who had been granted
naturalization papers here and who should attempt to
make their naturalization protect them from the
consequences of their past criminal acts. But this
plan has never been adopted by any other country,
and the attempt to cause the United States to
initiate it was not in accordance with public opinion.
On 28 Jan., 1897, the senate ratified both treaties,
but with amendments conferring discretionary
power on the surrendering government in the
matter of giving up its own citizens.

As the time for the meeting of the national
democratic convention of 1896 drew nigh it
became apparent that the advocates of the free coinage
of silver would have a majority of the delegates.
On 16 June Mr. Cleveland, in a published
letter, condemned the free-silver movement, and
called upon its opponents to do all in their power
to defeat it. The convention was clearly opposed
to Mr. Cleveland. Its platform was in effect a
condemnation of his policy in the matters of the
currency, the preservation of public order,
civil-service reform, and Cuban policy. It declared for
the free coinage of silver and nominated a
pronounced free-silver advocate. In the canvass that
followed Mr. Cleveland was favorable to the
gold-standard wing of the party, which under the name of
the national democrats held a separate convention
and nominated Senator Palmer for the presidency.

One of the president's last official acts was his
appearance at the sesquicentennial celebration of
Princeton university, where he delivered an address
that was widely praised. Soon afterward it was
announced that he had purchased a house in the
town of Princeton, and after the inauguration of
his successor he removed thither with his family.
There his son was born, 28 Oct., 1897. The picture
on page 654 represents Mr. Cleveland's summer
home at Buzzard's Bay, Mass.

Mr. Cleveland is as distinguished for forcible
speech as for forcible action. His many addresses,
both while in and out of office, are marked by clearness
of thought and directness of expression, which,
with his courage and ability, have always appealed
to the best sentiments of the people, and have
formed and led a healthy public opinion. He is
notable for being the first public man in the United
States to be nominated for the presidency thrice in
succession. Equally remarkable is the fact that he
has received this recognition although often at variance
with his own party. His final withdrawal from
public office was marked, as has been already said,
by a general estrangement between him and many
of those who had been once his followers, and
despite this the popular feeling toward him throughout
the country continued to be one of respect and
esteem. Several campaign lives of Mr. Cleveland
appeared during his three presidential contests.
See also “President Cleveland,” by J. Lowry Whittle,
in the “Public Men of the Day” series (1896).

President Cleveland married, in the White House
(see illustration, page 652), on 2 June, 1886, Frances
Folsom, daughter
of his deceased
friend and partner,
Oscar Folsom,
of the Buffalo
bar. Except
the wife of Madison,
Mrs. Cleveland
is the youngest
of the many
mistresses of the
White House,
having been born
in Buffalo, N. Y.,
in 1864. She is
also the first wife
of a president
married in the
White House,
and the first to
give birth to a
child there, their second daughter having been born
in the executive mansion in 1893. — His youngest
sister, Rose Elizabeth, b. in Fayetteville, N. Y.,
in 1846, removed in 1853 to Holland Patent, N. Y.,
where her father was settled as pastor of the
Presbyterian church, and where he died the same year.
She was educated at Houghton seminary, became
a teacher in that school, and later assumed charge
of the collegiate institute in Lafayette, Ind. She
taught for a time in a private school in Pennsylvania,
and then prepared a course of historical
lectures, which she delivered before the students
of Houghton seminary and in other schools. When
not employed in this manner, she devoted herself
to her aged mother in the homestead at Holland
Patent, N. Y., until her mother's death in 1882.
On the inauguration of the president she became
the mistress of the White House, and after her
brother's marriage she associated herself as part
owner and instructor in an established institution
in New York city. Miss Cleveland has published
a volume of lectures and essays under the title
“George Eliot's Poetry, and other Studies” (New
York, 1885), and “The Long Run,” a novel (1886).